Justice Antonin Scalia really has it in for gay people, and he doesn’t mince words.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia compared homosexuality and murder on Monday as he argued at a Princeton seminar that elected bodies should be allowed to regulate actions they see as immoral.
“If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” Scalia said, according to The Associated Press.
Scalia was asked about controversial comments he had made in the past that argued that the constitutionality of subjects like the death penalty, abortion or sodomy laws were all “easy” to decide by considering the Constitution as understood by its writers.
Scalia said that while he did not believe such hyperbole was “necessary,” he did think it was “effective” in forwarding his argument that legislatures should be allowed to ban acts they believe to be immoral.
“It’s a form of argument that I thought you would have known, which is called the ‘reduction to the absurd,’ ” Scalia said.
Scalia said he did not equate homosexuality morally with murder, but was making a point about the state’s ability to regulate them.
When you are a Justice on the United States Supreme Court and you can’t distinguish between a state of being, as in your sexual orientation, and a violent act, it’s high time you found another line of work.
While I doubt that Mr. Scalia cares what I or anyone else think of him, I can’t help but think that his medieval views on society and morality do a disservice to the cause of justice in this country. And I’m also reminded of the wise counsel of Rep. Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island, who didn’t mince words, either:
Dear Sir, you are without any doubt, a rogue, a rascal, a villain, a thief, a scoundrel, and a mean, dirty, stinking, sniveling, sneaking, pimping, pocket-picking, thrice double-damned no-good son of a bitch.
You have to know how to talk to these people.